Evolution and Intelligent Design

[Gman]

I never said they weren't connected. Merely they are separate fields. Evolution is connected with many different fields, such as paleontology/archeology/genetics, etc.... But, these are still different fields. I really don't see the point you are trying to make. They are connected, so what?

Pierson... You are not paying attention to my posts... What have I been saying? I'm saying that it is impossible to divorce philosophy from science. Philosophy will always slip into your science. Why? Becuase we are human beings... Science is unbiased, but people aren't.

Again, we don't accept it as fact, but as a likely possibility. I don't see anywhere in the text that evolutionary biologists are the ones who are doing this research, do you? They are different fields. Connected sure. I don't see what you are trying to prove here...

Again... The words "possibly", "could", or "perhaps" are NOT scientific terms.... That is a belief system. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Not sure if you are taking my quote out of context again. Please read what I wrote above. If you are referring to areas of evolutionary research we are still unsure about, I never said it wasn't factual, but unknown. The blanks aren't filled in with "philosophy," it's filled in with "I don't know."

"I don't know" is NOT a scientific term. I'm sorry to explain this to you... You say that "I don't know" but then as I have clearly shown that certain scientists ARE trying to explain it through natural facts. I'm sorry but natural facts never could explain everything as you have already confessed. You fell into my trap.

I never said anyone has all the answers. I totally agree with you on that point. But some do have more answers than others. I went over degrees of faith. One requires more faith than the other. Look through this thread and compare the evidence provided for evolution vs. that provided for ID (none?). Which do you think requires more faith?

Both ID and naturalism are faith based... The proof for ID is found in evolution, that it can't address all facts.

I'll make this point again. I don't care if you don't accept the evidence for evolution, you can believe whatever you want. I care about the alternative being pushed to be taught to school children. If you aren't defending ID, and are just saying evolution is false and you don't know how these organisms came about (clearly appearing to have evolved), we have nothing to talk about.

I actually don't have a problem with evolution.. I only have a problem with it when people can't confess that it is has problems too and can't address all things we can see by our observable world. Theories ok, all answers no...

Why do you bring God into the equation? (see above) We are comparing evolution with ID. You said yourself ID doesn't necessarily mean God did it. Look at the evidence again, and this time compare evolution with ID. If you think ID has more evidence and requires less faith, post the evidence.

Again.. Your own confessions says that evolution does not have all the answers. ID is already being used a number of areas of science such as archeology, anthropology, forensics and SETI , and it hasn’t hurt science. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

I will make this clearer for you... It's not that the macro evolutionary belief is necessarily bad, however, when only naturalistic points are given it can be easier cloaked into the atheistic philosophy.

I totally agree with the bolded statement. We get the knowledge and understanding from the evidence. Again, look through the thread and compare the evidence for the two. Which one is more of a "belief"? This is why ID isn't taught in schools.

Actually I would even be fine not to teach ID as long as macro-evolution is not taught as fact and can't answer all things. I would also be content to see the problems with evolution taught.

Excellent. Thanks for the definition. I think we can agree "macroevolution" is referring to evolutionary change over long periods of time. Can you give me a specific example of where you have a problem with this?

I have a problem with macroevolution when people teach it as fact... It is NOT.. It is assumed.

Do you agree that speciation occurs within the realms of "microevolution"? Do you agree that we can get another organism that looks very different from its ancestor within the realms of microevolution? (wolves to chihuahuas for example).

That is relative to the terms. It is still part of the same family.

I don't see the need for the last sentence. I never said evolution disproved God. This goes back to my main point on page 1 as well. If evolution was proven false, that does not prove ID (and/or God) to be true.

No it doesn't.. But evolution doesn't have a strangle hold on all the possible answers either. Science should not be approached dogmatically. Especially around the topic of origins.

Give me physical examples please. Where macroevolution is assumed and certain concepts of ID are fact. This should be easy.

Let look at it in regards to gravity. I don’t think you can compare Darwinian evolution to gravity. When you look at the scientific methods of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton they made observations plus predictions that anyone could observe… Darwinian evolution is not like that. DE is a different kind of science, it’s a historical science that claims what happened in the past, it’s not like gravity at all… There is a categorical difference between evolutionary science and gravity.. Gravity can make simple predictions like the gravitational force between the earth and the moon. It’s something that can be measured.. You can’t take Darwinism and formulate it to an equation like F=MA the force of gravity. Dawinism is NOT a law, you can’t measure it.. It’s all just speculation… And if you believed that life arose by chance processes, you have to believe that millions of years ago life arouse from non-life, from matter, and this violates the law of biogeneis. No scientist has ever showed this law could ever be violated.

"Not as fact but in weight of evidence." This statement is confusing to me. Can you think of something that is in weight of the evidence but is not a fact?

Can you think of anything that doesn't when it comes to macro-evolution or chemical evolution?

Mendel was also religious, that has nothing to do with anything.

Everyone is religious... Even you. Just the fact that he believed the Bible shows how crucial he was to science.

Theories are explanations of the facts. Evolution is both. I have shown you what college text books say about the origin of life. Purely speculative, but offers experiments done in the lab to show why it's a likely possibility. Why is it taught? Because it's a common question and is currently being studied. We don't have the answer, but the hypotheses and experiments are brought to the students attention. What's wrong with that? Are you proposing we shouldn't teach any hypotheses in classrooms?

Again.. Terms like "possible" or "perhaps" are NOT scientific terms.

There maybe no facts other than natural facts, but of course is that what you mean that doesn’t get you what you want and need which is your reason for believing that there are no facts other than natural facts. It just gives you the way you are choosing to use the term. But can natural facts explain everything?

Can the natural world be explained and understood only in natural terms? If so, then we must have some indication that it is possible. As an example if one was to look at the brain, how would one conclude that there was consciousness? If you looked at a chemical process in the brain could you find what someone said that day or a book that they might have read? It doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything about it but if you are locked into the natural explanations as the only body of knowledge and the correspondence to it as the only reality, then you are making yourself your own reality.

It doesn't matter. What matters is the evidence. We don't have any evidence that it was God, aliens or a time traveling cell biologist. I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence in this thread for ID.

Again... What evidence? You have stated that you don't know... Therefore the belief in a creator cannot be thrown under the table..

So, because humans are going to inject their philosophies into science, we can't look to alternate hypotheses? That's crazy! No scientific research would ever get done. It doesn't matter if philosophies get injected by individuals. As I said, we all have different philosophies. The scientific method is the best method to discover truth, REGARDLESS of your philosophy. This is why we have the peer review process.

You are greatly confused... You have already stated, "We don't have any evidence that it was God" you have JUST injected your philosophy into your science. I'm sorry you failed the test...

I never said science disproves the existence of God. We aren't talking about that. We are talking about Intelligent Design and Evolution. Why do you keep going back to God?

Again you fell into my trap... You clearly stated... "We don't have any evidence that it was God." You are making philosophical statements.. Not science.

Did you not see my very first post? How can you sit there and say you have gotten no evidence for evolutionary theory. Inorganic matter to life is still a mystery, but says nothing about evolution.

Again.. It is taught in Pragmatism. The philosophical glue of macro-evolution.

I could just as easily ask you for evidence of magic creating life. If you want "macro evolution" creating a new species, look back to the first page and click the link to go back to my response to Jlay. (the one with the whale fossils).

To sit there and say you have gotten no evidence is being disingenuous. The people who are claiming the scientific consensus has examined the evidence and gotten it WRONG are the ones who need to provide some evidence. I'm still waiting.

And we are still waiting for your evidence too... So far nothing..

It's not science's job to disprove the Bible. The Bible is making the extravagant claims, the burden of proof is on you. I'll create another thread regarding questions I have about the Bible later.

You stated that there is no evidence for God.. Also the Bible has revealed the "Big Bang" Theory.

[sandy_mcd]

Again... The words "possibly", "could", or "perhaps" are NOT scientific terms.... "I don't know" is NOT a scientific term. I'm sorry to explain this to you... Again.. Terms like "possible" or "perhaps" are NOT scientific terms.

Huh? Please explain what definition of science does not include uncertainty.


From a link at Simple Justice, http://brownandlittlelaw.com/2012/05/28 ... upid-wins/

Imagine two experts.

Expert one is young and arrogant. He has no practical experience. He testifies to scientific “facts” that seal a person’s fate. He grudgingly acknowledges that science is not absolute, yet he speaks in nothing but certainties when it comes to each and every fact weighing in favor of guilt. He insists that his “science” is infallible and that things must be a certain way. He uses big words to build even bigger claims.

Expert two has a half-century of practical experience, and he more or less founded his field of study. He’s conducted over fifty clinical trials involving the type of thing to which he’s testifying. He has academic and professional credentials that can’t be beat. He testifies that things are complex and that no reputable scientist would ever dare to make the ridiculous claims expert one did.

Expert one wins. Every time.

I recently talked to the jury in just such a case, and they didn’t believe a word expert two said. He wasn’t sure enough. Expert one told them what to do with authority. Expert two only gave them variables. He wouldn’t commit. The problem is the foundation of science in the courtroom itself.

By its very nature, science is fluid. Reputable practitioners gather measurable evidence and subject it to specific principles of reasoning. From that, they develop theories to test and retest. They gain knowledge, but they don’t produce “facts” beyond the empirical data of the studies themselves. They gain knowledge and produce other theories which each must then be tested and retested. Validation does not create truths, but rather principles at best. Outliers exist. They may be explained, but that process too requires more testing and analysis. When the reason for discrepancies is explained, it isn’t much more absolute than the initial hypothesis. It’s a tendency, an assumption, or at best a theory. It certainly isn’t a “fact” by any stretch of the imagination.

[Gman]

Huh? Please explain what definition of science does not include uncertainty.

Huh? Perhaps... Possibly... Could be... Maybe... Could very well be... Might. Thanks I've had enough philosophy for today.

[sandy_mcd]

Huh? Please explain what definition of science does not include uncertainty.

Huh? Perhaps... Possibly... Could be... Maybe... Could very well be... Might. Thanks I've had enough philosophy for today.

But you still haven't revealed your personal definition of science.
I am sorry that you want science to provide rock-solid definitive answers to all of your questions, but that is not the way science works.

[Gman]

But you still haven't revealed your personal definition of science.
I am sorry that you want science to provide rock-solid definitive answers to all of your questions, but that is not the way science works.

Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world and develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts.. Science is also not about believing. Could, would, should, perhaps, etc., are not scientific terms themselves... If science is about observation and experimentation, then we know what happens when conditions are met. Also if science starts opening the door to theology or philosophy, then other beliefs should be added in too..

[sandy_mcd]

Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world and develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts.. Science is also not about believing. Could, would, should, perhaps, etc., are not scientific terms themselves... If science is about observation and experimentation, then we know what happens when conditions are met.

But
1) experiments are never really reproducible
2) measurements always involve error
3) it is not possible to completely isolate an experiment from the surrounding universe
4) there is not always agreement on facts
5) there is a lot of interpretation of results

So science is full of "could" "would" "should" "perhaps" "consistent with" "suggests" etc. Maybe these words don't often appear in the philosophy of science, but they sure do in real world science.

[twinc]

what a lot of much ado about nothing from nothing to nothing = there was not millions of years ago for even if then there would be only dust and ashes and no life possible and not even a protective water canopy - the answer is intelligent design "in the beginning,in an instant on each of 6 x 24hr days God out of nothing created everything very good[complete] = no millions of years of evolution necessary or possible = evolution from intelligent design in the beginning = evolution from Origins/Original not to Origins/Original - twinc

[neo-x]

here was not millions of years ago for even if then there would be only dust and ashes and no life possible

can you prove this? were you there?

[KBCid]

Actually it cannot yet be tested for. If a multitude of life forms were created that function based on the same materials and tool sets for their formational organization then there is no method whereby one could empirically prove or disprove it as historical truth since like things react the same under like conditions. So a change that may occur because of a specific environmental variable to one organism is logically probable to occur to any other form of organism that uses the same basis of materials and tool sets as the first.

Do you think ID is a legitimate scientific hypothesis? If so, is it falsifiable? (from this comment it sounds like it is not).

ID is already a scientific study in several areas.
Falsifiability in the context of ID as a cause of structures can be absolute and can also fall into a gray area depending on the amount of evidence to work with. The gray area would occur when ID cause the construction of something that natural cause could have formed just as well. So, there is no way to differentiate cause of some structures. Of course, at this time evolutionists 'assume' that anything historical that is not directly attributable to intelligence can come about by natural causes. There is no method for falsifying it since is considered a historical occurance which is not reproducible in current time.
To presume a priori that only natural causes can explain historic structures is where science is hobbled. Such an assumption in itself is not scientific since it cannot be tested for validity. Therefore, assuming ID is not tenable because it is not a natural cause based on the unscientific assumption of naturalism is hypocrisy.
Intelligence is a causal force within our observable environment therefore we know it can exist. Historical occurance of this force is where a group of people decided that it could not possibly have existed based on a series of unproven and unproveable assumptions.
So, if we really want to perform true scientific method then it cannot be arbitrarily bound by anything other than what can be empirically tested to form such boundaries.

[Rob]

what a lot of much ado about nothing from nothing to nothing = there was not millions of years ago for even if then there would be only dust and ashes and no life possible and not even a protective water canopy - the answer is intelligent design "in the beginning,in an instant on each of 6 x 24hr days God out of nothing created everything very good[complete] = no millions of years of evolution necessary or possible = evolution from intelligent design in the beginning = evolution from Origins/Original not to Origins/Original - twinc

Huh. Guess we can all go home?

[Gman]

But
1) experiments are never really reproducible
2) measurements always involve error
3) it is not possible to completely isolate an experiment from the surrounding universe
4) there is not always agreement on facts
5) there is a lot of interpretation of results

So science is full of "could" "would" "should" "perhaps" "consistent with" "suggests" etc. Maybe these words don't often appear in the philosophy of science, but they sure do in real world science.

I'm glad to see that you are learning... If we allow these words into our science then that should allow other doors to open to our understanding how our science is conducted and not be too dogmatic on how it is approached. We need to be professional about it.

[sandy_mcd]

I'm glad to see that you are learning... If we allow these words into our science then that should allow other doors to open to our understanding how our science is conducted and not be too dogmatic on how it is approached. We need to be professional about it.

Yep, I guess I just have to keep rephrasing everything i say a bunch of times.

[twinc]

what a lot of much ado about nothing from nothing to nothing = there was not millions of years ago for even if then there would be only dust and ashes and no life possible and not even a protective water canopy - the answer is intelligent design "in the beginning,in an instant on each of 6 x 24hr days God out of nothing created everything very good[complete] = no millions of years of evolution necessary or possible = evolution from intelligent design in the beginning = evolution from Origins/Original not to Origins/Original - twinc

Huh. Guess we can all go home?

no not go home but, [Christian/Evolutionists], come home -twinc

[KBCid]

1) experiments are never really reproducible.

I would recommend looking at a chemistry book or a mechanical engineering book. In my world we can reproduce experiments and results.

Scientific method
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

So science is full of "could" "would" "should" "perhaps" "consistent with" "suggests" etc. Maybe these words don't often appear in the philosophy of science, but they sure do in real world science.

A hypothesis can be full of these words as long as it is based on evidence to allow them. If you read the steps outlined below you will see how these words may be properly applied;

1) Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, ("could" "would" "should" "perhaps")
2) and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them.
3) These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter.

So if an experimenter theorizes that all life evolved from a common ancestor then he must also define an experiment to test his theory. Tell me what test can be performed to test this theory?. Historical happenings that are beyond an experimenters ability to verify is where the line is crossed for scientific methodology and plunges head first into religion.
You can religiously believe that life had a common ancestor but, you have zero observable historic evidence that there was one and you have no possible method to test it. Therefore, you have nothing to base the theory on. Unscientific in every sense but, a darned good religious philosophy to get others to believe in if your pushing a religious agenda.

[twinc]

much ado about nonsense - even the experiment is flawed since it invaribly involves looking for a black cat that isn't there in a dark room and then insisting that the cat has been found and insisting that others accept this nonsense - twinc